Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed that it was this side of the House that would not allow questions and comments. I do thank the hon. member for asking for unanimous consent.
What really matters in this place is the debate that goes on between the parties. I would welcome a response to some of the perhaps mildly critical points I wish to make with regard to some of the comments and the process that is going on here.
I have heard members from all parties talk about their concern that we are operating under time allocation on this bill. Time allocation is a very interesting process which has been used by all governments in this place and across the country when there is an obstreperous and obtrusive opposition party which simply wants to oppose and stop the government's agenda from going forward. It does not have to be based on any kind of solid rationale. It simply has to be based on the fact that opposition members got out of bed this morning and said “We not know what is going on in the House but we are opposed to it”. That is their mentality when they come to work.
The only option for a government, particularly a majority government that wants to get on with the business of Canada, the business of concerned Canadians, is to use the parliamentary tools that are available. This happens to be one of them.
It is also interesting that opposition members would claim that there has not been a dialogue or discussion. In fact, the proposed amendments here are the result of over two years of extensive consultations and review of the equalization program by the federal government and the provinces.
It is rather interesting that the opposition members would suggest there has not been an opportunity for dialogue. In fact, those who are most directly affected by this equalization program are the provincial governments, the people in the provinces. I think they agree it is important that we get on with the renewal of this particular program.
It is important when people use words, particularly in this place, that we try to understand what they mean because they can be clouded. They can be hidden. They can actually be tricky the odd time.
I heard a member from the Reform Party say that the Reform Party is interested in seeing equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. Interesting. Put that together with the question that was asked of him by one of the hon. members opposite about tuition fees in universities. I would say that equality of opportunity to the Reform Party simply means that there should be an opportunity to attend post-secondary education somewhere in the country but equality of outcome which Reform is opposed to means that they are going to have to pay whatever it is the Reform Party decides to pass on.
We as the national government believe not only in equality of opportunity but also in equality of outcome. They must go together, otherwise we end up with disparities around the country where the rich will be able to afford to send their sons and daughters to universities and colleges, but the majority of Canadians will not. That is what it means if we look at putting the opportunity there but do not worry about the outcome or the mechanisms that are put in place to help Canadians.
I refer to a speech that was made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Reform Party. This is important because it is an example of a party whose members will stand and say what they think Canadians want to hear and then they will change the words. Let me share some examples.
The Leader of the Official Opposition said in a speech on this bill “I do not think it can be stressed enough that equalization is an important principle which makes our federation work”. One would assume by that statement that he would be in support of the bill. I do not want to take it out of context but it is a reasonable assumption, it makes the federation work. Then he goes on to say the official opposition, the Reform Party, is committed to equalization and has been from the outset. Once again one would think that he is indicating that he supports this.
I remember the Ross Perot presidential campaigns in the United States. We know that most of Reform's positions come out of American policies. Ross Perot would point to a chart and it would be a matter of if you want to know why the car does not run, you have to open up the hood and look at the engine. Terrific.
The Leader of the Opposition goes to the Ross Perot school of politics. He wants four columns. This makes equalization clear to him. It is sort of like a game show.
Column one would show what the province would receive through simple equal per capita grants in support of social programs. There is nothing in column one to deal with geography. Take a look at what we are going to see when Nunavut starts up. They are having their elections today.
The per capita grant in Nunavut for reasons of climate, geography and demographics will be substantially higher than the per capita grant for Saskatchewan or somewhere else in the country. It seems fair that we do not simply look at the number of people who exist in a particular province or territory, but we deal with the real issues. How do these people survive? But not in the Ross Perot school, and I cannot say the Leader of the Opposition's name of course, since it is unparliamentary—but not in that school of economics and politics.
Column two would show what the province would receive in terms of enhanced and better focused equalization. He is somehow going to magically top it up. That is the name of the game. If you get the right column maybe there is a top up. It just depends, we are not sure.
Column three would show what the people and employers would receive through tax cuts. While he wants to top up the equalization plan with increased transfers, he is also going to cut taxes.
It reminds me of the Reform Party's position on health care funding. It said that it would put 50% of the surplus toward tax relief, 50% of the surplus toward paying down the debt and the other 50% that it will somehow magically manufacture I suppose will go to health care. It is voodoo economics without question.
Number four would give the total of all this. I am not quite sure whether this is reinventing the wheel or gamesmanship or a show business mentality, trying to be different. I do not see the substantive benefits in any way whatsoever. I mentioned we have to be careful about interpreting the words used by people who speak in this House.
This is a quote from the Leader of the Opposition: “The premiers should take off their premiers' hats for just a day and put on their political leaders' hats. I assure those provincial leaders who favour reform of the federation over fossilized federalism”—if that is not Ross Perot I do not know what is—“that they will find an ally in federal Reformers united to create a better alternative to this bankrupt administration”.
Very interesting. I have finally discovered where the words united alternative came from. In reality we are hearing that if the premiers will forget about their responsibilities to represent all the people of the province, whether those people voted for them or not, and if the premiers will simply put on their partisan political hats, then the Reform Party will line up beside them.
This is a group of people who do not even understand the traditional significance of the equalization system in this country that ensures Canadians from sea to sea to sea have equal opportunity and equal outcome to ensure that they and their families will have access to all social programs and economic development programs in this country. It is astounding to me that Reformers would be opposed to a bill that would share the wealth throughout this great land.